Start of marketing for Nikon mirrorless FF

[Clix Pix]

Went from D850 to A7iii. No regrets. Occasionally miss being able to heavy crop, but that is much better cured by a longer zoom than on the PC. Reach currently limited to 24-105mm f/4.

Focussing is VERY fast, EVF is fine (rather than great), eye focussing is superb. If you have decent battery life now, you'll need a spare battery or two, not because it's bad, it's just not as good as you'll be used to.

At the time (six months ago) I did wonder if Nikon's Z6/7 would make me regret leaping over to Sony....should I have waited? Can honestly say I'm glad I didn't wait. The Z6/7 look good, but I can't say either look better than the A7III, let alone the A7RIII.

We'll have to see what the comparison reviews say when they hit YouTube, but for the moment the spec sheet doesn't blow me away. For me at least, Canon was never on my short list so their Mirrorless release passes me by...although I do note the lack of IBS on the spec sheet.

The ability to crop more heavily if need be would be nice, and the better EVF in the A7R III are two things which are weighing more heavily in terms of my interest in that camera vs the A7III. Only when I finally get into a camera store that has both available for me to handle and to compare in person will I finally make up my mind. I'm the kind of person who always gets at least one spare battery at the time of purchase, and also an external battery charger if one doesn't come with the camera itself. (The provided external charger = another plus for the A7R III vs the A7III, although certainly not a deal-breaker.)

At least I have no difficulty in deciding on which lenses with which to start out: Sony's 90mm FE macro and the FE 24-105mm, plus maybe the Sony 50mm macro in addition (can you tell I'm interested in macro?!).

As a long-time Nikon user I was curious about what Nikon was planning to offer in mirrorless, and now that I've seen the specs and read the various comments, I am not interested nor excited. It seems rather disappointing news, overall, and that is too bad for the many who had been eagerly anticipating the Z series cameras. I've never used Canon so the news about them also planning to release a mirrorless camera and lenses hasn't interested me at all.
[doublepost=1536163414][/doublepost]

Just a thought.
Doesn't mean anything...

Years and years ago I remember seeing an article about SONY's "first digital camera" -- called the "Mavica" (sp?).

It was very primitive, b&w only, and had the resolution that was probably equivalent to a vacuum-tube tv screen of the time, if that good.

But... I was talking to a friend, and told him, to wit, "this may look primitive now, but it's going to be the end of film photography". Not immediately, but "in time".

And although there are still film cameras left, and still some folks who use them, digital -did- spell "the end" for the paradigm of film-based photography.

Today, looking at the rash of "mirrorless" introductions (Nikon, Canon, Panasonic not far behind), we can pretty much see "the end of mirror-based cameras".

They won't completely disappear -- not yet, and some people will continue to use them for many years.

But the "advent of good mirrorless" is going to brush aside mirrored cameras, both at the amateur/enthusiast level, and eventually at the pro level as well.
Perhaps quicker than we might expect...

I remember the Sony Mavica series!! It was the one which used a CD as its memory/storage media and was large and bulky. That was back in the days of Usenet and the various alt.rec.photo discussion boards......

 

[Moakesy]

At least I have no difficulty in deciding on which lenses with which to start out: Sony's 90mm FE macro and the FE 24-105mm, plus maybe the Sony 50mm macro in addition (can you tell I'm interested in macro?!).

The 24-105 and the 90mm macro is exactly what I've gone for! Both really good, and that 24-105 has crazy fast focussing.

Slight twinge of loss having nothing with greater reach, so the 100-400 is on my radar for bird / nature shots.

As I said I wanted to downsize, getting it would go against my reason for changing systems in the first place, so I'm trying to be a good boy and not be tempted to buy it.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Just a thought.
Doesn't mean anything...

Years and years ago I remember seeing an article about SONY's "first digital camera" -- called the "Mavica" (sp?).

It was very primitive, b&w only, and had the resolution that was probably equivalent to a vacuum-tube tv screen of the time, if that good.

But... I was talking to a friend, and told him, to wit, "this may look primitive now, but it's going to be the end of film photography". Not immediately, but "in time".

And although there are still film cameras left, and still some folks who use them, digital -did- spell "the end" for the paradigm of film-based photography.

Today, looking at the rash of "mirrorless" introductions (Nikon, Canon, Panasonic not far behind), we can pretty much see "the end of mirror-based cameras".

They won't completely disappear -- not yet, and some people will continue to use them for many years.

But the "advent of good mirrorless" is going to brush aside mirrored cameras, both at the amateur/enthusiast level, and eventually at the pro level as well.
Perhaps quicker than we might expect...

What you say is probably true. But there is one big difference.

Moving from film to digital gave lots of advantages.

Moving from DSLR to mirrorless doesn't make much difference at all.

 

[Clix Pix]

The 24-105 and the 90mm macro is exactly what I've gone for! Both really good, and that 24-105 has crazy fast focussing.

Slight twinge of loss having nothing with greater reach, so the 100-400 is on my radar for bird / nature shots.

As I said I wanted to downsize, getting it would go against my reason for changing systems in the first place, so I'm trying to be a good boy and not be tempted to buy it.

I'm glad you are so pleased with both lenses! They just seem like a really good way to start out and then as time goes on, add another, faster prime or two. As far as longer reach, since I also have the RX10 M4 bridge camera, I can always use that if I want serious reach (even though that has the 1" sensor), but I doubt that I would buy another longer in the FE lenses, since I don't anticipate doing a lot of bird photography now, the kind where I trek somewhere with tripod, Wimberly on the tripod and long lens on the Wimberly. Those days are over for me -- I'm not getting any younger!

 

[maflynn]

Moving from DSLR to mirrorless doesn't make much difference at all.

The differences were less about image quality and more about camera and lens size. For me, the need for a small footprint was a major factor. The fact that the OMD is much smaller then the most DSLRs was a huge deciding factor.

 

[Apple fanboy]

The differences were less about image quality and more about camera and lens size. For me, the need for a small footprint was a major factor. The fact that the OMD is much smaller then the most DSLRs was a huge deciding factor.

Agree. But that isn't really the case with the Z. By the time you factor in the lens adaptor and extra batteries it might weigh more!

 

[Clix Pix]

The differences were less about image quality and more about camera and lens size. For me, the need for a small footprint was a major factor. The fact that the OMD is much smaller then the most DSLRs was a huge deciding factor.

I agree about the weight and size factor! Some years ago when I first laid eyes and hands on a Sony NEX-7 I said, "wow, I want one of these!" Why? Because of its smaller size and also because it offered some features that really do make a difference as well: focus peaking, information right in the EVF as one is preparing to shoot, good image quality, etc., etc. The lenses I have for the Sony NEX-7 are significantly smaller and lighter than any of my Nikon lenses. Of course the lenses that I get for a full-frame Sony camera are going to be larger and heavier, but there are still the advantages I mentioned above plus others which I won't discover until I'm actually using one.

 

[maflynn]

Agree. But that isn't really the case with the Z. By the time you factor in the lens adaptor and extra batteries it might weigh more!

No question and the price difference is the inverse, i.e., I saved a lot of $$ on the M43 platform, where as the Nikon mirrorless is incredibly expensive.

 

[Clix Pix]

Agree. But that isn't really the case with the Z. By the time you factor in the lens adaptor and extra batteries it might weigh more!

Very true, that.....and one reason (among others) that I looked at the Nikon Z specs and thought about that FTZ adapter and said, "nope, not for me." I don't think most of my Nikon lenses would work all that well on the adapter anyway, and I prefer using native lenses on a camera body. That, and there is the reality that none of the three new Z lenses Nikon is offering really appeals to me. Looking at Sony's much greater range of native E and FE lenses for their mirrorless cameras, I see several lenses which would work well for what I like and want to shoot, and that is an important deciding factor for me.

 

[Apple fanboy]

No question and the price difference is the inverse, i.e., I saved a lot of $$ on the M43 platform, where as the Nikon mirrorless is incredibly expensive.

It is, but it's probably marketed to a different audience.
I could buy it and keep my lens line up which would keep the price reasonable.
But then I still can't see a scenario where I'm going to get a picture with it, or better iq than I can with my D750.
Think I'll just stick where I am for now.
[doublepost=1536168740][/doublepost]

Very true, that.....and one reason (among others) that I looked at the Nikon Z specs and thought about that FTZ adapter and said, "nope, not for me." I don't think most of my Nikon lenses would work all that well on the adapter anyway, and I prefer using native lenses on a camera body. That, and there is the reality that none of the three new Z lenses Nikon is offering really appeals to me. Looking at Sony's much greater range of native E and FE lenses for their mirrorless cameras, I see several lenses which would work well for what I like and want to shoot, and that is an important deciding factor for me.

But you'd still have to deal with that annoying menu! Also I need lots to grip on to with my gorilla hands!

 

[Clix Pix]

It is, but it's probably marketed to a different audience.
I could buy it and keep my lens line up which would keep the price reasonable.
But then I still can't see a scenario where I'm going to get a picture with it, or better iq than I can with my D750.
Think I'll just stick where I am for now.
[doublepost=1536168740][/doublepost]
But you'd still have to deal with that annoying menu! Also I need lots to grip on to with my gorilla hands!

You're right that the M 4/3 cameras and lenses are marketed to a different audience. I've never used one, somehow it just didn't appeal to me but when I saw the slender Sony NEX-7 with its APS-C sensor (larger than any in the M 4/3 cameras) it was instant love.

Thankfully Sony has made some adjustments in its menu system, although there is still much room for improvement! The most important change is that they have added a new feature called "My Menu," in which one can put favorite and most-used functions, and that is quite useful. I've done that with the RX10 M4 and the RX100 M6 and would do the same in whichever full-frame Sony I buy. With that and the various customizable buttons and dials one usually doesn't have to do much menu-diving after the initial setup period and a bit of tweaking from time to time.

 

[maflynn]

It is, but it's probably marketed to a different audience.

No doubt, I'm not the target audience for these new cameras. I'm ok with that, my needs are a lot more humble. I'm shooting a lot less because of family constraints.

 

[Apple fanboy]

No doubt, I'm not the target audience for these new cameras. I'm ok with that, my needs are a lot more humble. I'm shooting a lot less because of family constraints.

Same here. Well certainly a lot less than I'd like!

 

[Clix Pix]

I went through a period of several years where I just wasn’t shooting very much at all, rarely picked up a camera. For some reason this summer the spark that has always been within became ignited more vigorously again and I find myself doing something photographic just about every day now and more importantly, am enjoying it. The fun in shooting is back!

 

[Apple fanboy]

I went through a period of several years where I just wasn’t shooting very much at all, rarely picked up a camera. For some reason this summer the spark that has always been within became ignited more vigorously again and I find myself doing something photographic just about every day now and more importantly, am enjoying it. The fun in shooting is back!

I still love photography. Just my home situation is difficult to say the least.

 

[Clix Pix]

It really can be difficult to juggle home responsibilities, work responsibilities and make time to just go out and take photos..... Something that I’ve been doing is not really planning anything; if I happen to see something and think, “that would be a cool image,” regardless of where I am and what is available to me at the time, I’ll just go ahead and shoot the picture. iPhone, compact camera, bridge camera, Mirrorless APS-C, DSLR..... The experience of making the shot is far more interesting to me than the followup experience of processing it. Whether or not it is going to be something that I share with others is secondary and whether or not it is technically perfect is also secondary, as most of my images usually aren’t!

What I most love, though, is taking a couple of hours or more and just going out somewhere and seeking interesting images to shoot. It has been way too darned hot and humid in this area to do that this last several weeks so instead I’ve been shooting close to home, but once the weather breaks I am looking forward to going to interesting parks and other places around here with camera in hand..... I also tend to find that I am happiest when not burdened with carrying a tripod, too, and that I most enjoy shooting when I can do it hand-held. Current cameras with their IBIS and VR (lenses) as well as better ASA/ISO noise control really make it much more feasible to shoot hand-held than even five or six years ago.

 

[Apple fanboy]

It really can be difficult to juggle home responsibilities, work responsibilities and make time to just go out and take photos..... Something that I’ve been doing is not really planning anything; if I happen to see something and think, “that would be a cool image,” regardless of where I am and what is available to me at the time, I’ll just go ahead and shoot the picture. iPhone, compact camera, bridge camera, Mirrorless APS-C, DSLR..... The experience of making the shot is far more interesting to me than the followup experience of processing it. Whether or not it is going to be something that I share with others is secondary and whether or not it is technically perfect is also secondary, as most of my images usually aren’t!

What I most love, though, is taking a couple of hours or more and just going out somewhere and seeking interesting images to shoot. It has been way too darned hot and humid in this area to do that this last several weeks so instead I’ve been shooting close to home, but once the weather breaks I am looking forward to going to interesting parks and other places around here with camera in hand..... I also tend to find that I am happiest when not burdened with carrying a tripod, too, and that I most enjoy shooting when I can do it hand-held. Current cameras with their IBIS and VR (lenses) as well as better ASA/ISO noise control really make it much more feasible to shoot hand-held than even five or six years ago.

Depends on what I'm shooting but I generally prefer a tripod.

 

[Clix Pix]

For some situations one really absolutely needs a tripod; didn’t mean to suggest otherwise!

 

[Apple fanboy]

For some situations one really absolutely needs a tripod; didn’t mean to suggest otherwise!

Horses for courses as we say!